Pre-Incorporation Contracts: an Examination of the Conceptual Confusion

SmithStearn Yachts Inc., made a contract with Gyrographic Communications Inc., where Gyrographic would provide advertising, marketing, and promotional services to SmithStearn. SmithStearn sues Gyrographic for breaching their contract. Gyrographic went on to say that the contract was purportedly made with SmithStearn Yacht., LLC, a Limited liability corporation and not with SmithStearn Yachts, Inc.

The particular focus of this essay is on how terms are implied. This is central because the courts intervene and impose implied terms when they believe that in addition to the terms the parties have expressly agreed on, other terms must be implied into the contract. Gillies argued that the courts have become more interventionist in protecting the rights of contracting parties thereby encroaching upon the notion of freedom of contract. The doctrine of freedom of contract is a prevailing philosophy which upholds the idea that parties to a contract should be at liberty to agree on their own terms without the interference of the courts or legislature. Implied terms can be viewed as a technique of construction or interpretation of contracts. It has been argued that the courts are interfering too much in their approach to determine and interpret the terms of a contract. The aim of this essay is to explore this argument further and in doing so consider whether freedom of contract is lost due to courts imposing implied terms. The essay will outline how the common law implies terms. The final part of the essay will examine whether Parliament, by means of a statute, or terms implied by custom restrict freedom in a contract. An overall conclusion on the issue will be reached.

This essay will explain the concepts of separate personality and limited liability and their significance in company law. The principle of separate personality is defined in the Companies Act 2006(CA) ; “subscribers to the memorandum, together with such other persons as may from time to time become members of the company are a body corporate by the name contained in memorandum.” This essentially means that a company is a separate legal personality to its members and therefore can itself be sued and enter into contracts. This theory was birthed into company law through the case of Salomon v Salomon and Co LTD 1872. This case involved a company entering liquidation and the unsecured creditors not being able to claim assets to compensate them. The issue in this case was whether Mr Salomon owed the money or the company did. In the end, the House of Lords held that the company was not an agent of Mr Salomon and so the debts were that of the company thus creating the “corporate Veil” .

The thesis deals with the above concepts and discusses how the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the Act) modified the law, particularly, by extending the legal capacity of a company and extinguishing or modifying the above rules which had previously restricted a company's ability

The Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act (‘UCITA’) differs from the Uniform Commercial Code Article 2 (UCC) in that

The other fundamental issue that Charles raises is the treatment that the employees get from both the law and the proprietors/accounts. He says that employees in most instances are treated as property that belongs to the owner of the business and recorded as costs (salary/allowances) and not as assets. This effectively means that they are treated as things that are supposed to be minimized just like any other costs. This is a trend that needs to be changed and the employees need to be treated as cherished community together with the proprietors and the stakeholders. It should be a community that has members who are proud to be members of that particular community, allowed to express their views on issue related to them and the organization and generally have a free environment to

Learning Objective 1.2 ~ discuss the different types of companies which may be formed under the Corporations Act 2001

ReferencesEdition e-text] Prentice-Hall Publishing. Retrieved August 25, 2005, from University of Phoenix, Resource BUS/415-Business Law Web Site:https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/content/eBookLibrary/content/eReader.

can be done to ensure that the company will work in the best interest of the

Choosing a Corporation/Company Structure - the business structure of a company/ corporation is highly recommended, it has the flexibility to gain more capital, or credit capability and assets used as security. Based on the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) AC 22, a corporation is another legal entity with their own legal rights, duties and responsibilities separate to the individual or owner of the company (Harris, Hargovan & Adams, 2013, pp 229). The risk and consequences are one of the principal considerations of choosing a company structure (Harris, Hargovan & Adams, pp 50). Based on the “Corporate Veil” Liability is owned by a separate legal entity and not to the extent of the owner, for instance, the debt of the company is not a personal liability, but the company. This is further explained in the case below.

Although doctrine of separate legal entity has the greatest importance in company law, it contains weaknesses that could be arguable. Professor Kahn-Freund described the doctrine as “calamitous” because it arise many issues, such as “How is it possible to check the one-man company and other abuse of company law?” Separate legal entity is inadequate for complex problems .

Contracts, business, and laws are three simple little words, but when put together they have a substantial impact on our everyday lives. Below we will discuss three case studies. The first case is between Chris, Matt, and Ian vs. Donald Margolin, who was injured when he used an aftershave lotion that he bought off the internet called Funny Face. The second case is between Sam, his landlord, and a national chain store. Sam is being accused of conducting business from his apartment and going back on a verbal promise. In the last case is two lifelong friends who decided to join in a partnership and open up a sporting goods shop. Therefore, before the appropriate court can proceed with the first case, the court should take into several considerations around the rules of jurisdiction, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and whether or not corporation/or corporate offices can be held for the criminal or potential act. In the second case before the court can rule the court should determine the various elements of a valid contract, if a quasi-contract exists, a promissory estoppel, and the rights an obligation of a tenant would prevail on Sam 's claims. Finally, in the third case between Jeb and Josh, they should determine the type of business entity that will overall protect their business and personal needs.

The concept of a company being a separate legal entity is the most striking illustration in separating the company from its owners. A paramount principle of corporate law is that no shareholder or member of a company is made liable for the obligations incurred by such incorporations A company is different from its members in the eyes of law. In continuations to this the opposite also holds true in the sense that neither can the company be held liable for the acts of its members. It is a fundamental distinction that a company is distinct from its members.

This case was written by P. Indu, under the direction of Vivek Gupta, IBS Center for Management Research. It was compiled

This act modified the methods for many different subjects, such as financial and non-financial reporting, company communications with shareholders, and the responsibilities of company heads. The main role of the Act is to get managers to act in the best interests of shareholders. It additionally requires managers to think about the long-term effects of decisions; the welfares of the business’s staff; the business’s connections alongside suppliers, clients, and others; and the impression of the company’s procedures on the surrounding area. The Company Law Review Group was established by the government in 1998 in order to contemplate ways to modernize company law. The Company Law Review guidelines were the starting point for the modifications suggested by the Company Law Reform White Paper released in 2005. Then the White Paper proposals turned into an outline for a Bill, which then finally received official approval and passed in 2006, (companieshouse.gov.uk, 2014).